Posted on 11/21/2015 8:23:34 AM PST by JOHN W K
See Abbott: Texas to Block Syrian Refugee Resettlement
"Gov. Greg Abbott said Monday that Texas would refuse Syrian refugees after a terrorist attack in Paris killed more than 120 people.
"Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees,any one of whom could be connected to terrorism, being resettled in Texas," Abbott wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama."
I contend that the power to regulate immigration is a power exercised by the original 13 States and preexisted our existing Constitution. I further contend that if this power has not been expressly delegated to Congress, then it is a power reserved by the States under our Constitution's Tenth Amendment.
Our federal government's delegated power starts and stops with the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, not immigration.
There is a big difference between the words "immigration" and "naturalization".
The ordinary meaning of the word "immigration" is the entrance into a country of foreigners for the purpose of permanent residence. This word does not appear in our Constitution.
"Naturalization" does appear in our Constitution in the following context:
Congress shall have power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
We also find the words "Migration" in our Constitution in the following context:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. see: Article 1, Section 9
As to the ordinary meaning of "naturalization", its meaning is nothing more than the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. Congress, under our Constitution, is granted an exclusive, but limited power to establish a uniform rule by which an alien may become a citizen, regardless of what State the alien migrates to. But the power over "naturalization" does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular state's original policing power over foreigners wishing to immigrate into their State. This is verified by the following documentation taken from the debates dealing with our nation's first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790
REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: "that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States." see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148
In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what "Naturalization" [the power granted to Congress] means, and he â€doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States, all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States." see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152
And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157
The irrefutable fact is, nowhere in our Constitution has our federal government, much less the President of the United States, been vested with a power over the immigration of foreigners into the United States or a power to compel a state to accept them.
The limited power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a "citizen of the United States".
It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language confirms each State may make distinctions between "citizens" and "persons" when regulating and enforcing its laws!
Please note that a review of our Constitution's 14th Amendment declares that "citizens" of the United States are guaranteed the "privileges or immunities" offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not "citizens of the united States" and referred to as "persons" (which would include aliens and those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the "privileges or immunities" which a state has created for its "citizens".
The 14th Amendment only requires that "persons" may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state's codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all other "persons" within the state in question.
CONCLUSION
The State of Texas, as well as every other State has retained its policing power to determine the flow of foreigners into their State, which is an original power exercised by each state and never ceded to our federal government.
Neither Congress nor the president has a power under the Constitution to force the unwanted populations of other countries upon the States. The various states should immediately go into Court and ask the Court for an injunction to stop Obama from forcing the states to accept unwanted foreigners while it determines the legitimacy of Obama's or Congress forcing tens of thousands of foreigners upon the various United States, especially when the introduction of these foreigners pose a very real threat to the general welfare of the States.
Keep in mind a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled against the Obama administration’s controversial immigration program, upholding a lower court's injunction barring the plan from taking effect while awaiting the outcome of a full trial on the lawsuit's underlying arguments. One of the reasons for granting the injunction was the devastating effects thrust upon the States without their permission.
JWK
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
From your link.....
In September, the U.S. State Department announced it would accept 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. Thousands have fled war-stricken Syria, mostly to Europe, Turkey and Jordan, as the terrorist group ISIS has taken over much of the nation’s territory.
It is unclear how many of those refugees would have ended up in Texas, but in recent years, the Lone Star State has accepted about 10 percent of the 70,000 refugees admitted into the country annually.
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a classic case of the left trying to have it both ways. They say that local areas can choose NOT to enforce immigration laws, like through sanctuary cities, but they also say that local areas CANNOT chose TO enforce immigration laws.
You can’t have your falafel and eat it too.
Excellent point.
ALL states need to reject these terrorists. If the Obama regime wants to kick us out of their “union”, so be it. We wont have to go through all of that secession legal bull****. Yeah, the Kenyan will cut of all tax dollars to the states but he wont have them to give away anyway. Obama’s socialist state wont last long without his government stealing money from thirty seven states through “taxation”.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject.
This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
George Tucker
----
Until a foreign national begins the process to become a citizen they are not an 'immigrant', they're a denizen .
This has potential.
So, they can get in for $10?.....................
The annual refugee count went up by 10,000 for this fiscal yr, goes up another 15,000 next fiscal yr
and then to 100,000 the following fiscal yr. It had been at 60,000 annually for some time.
I’d rephrase that very slightly though I get what you are saying.
I’d say that the left cannot coherently argue that localities have the option to reject Federal law through sanctuary cities while arguing localities do NOT have the option to reject Federal interference through unwanted immigration.
They need to choose which argument they want to lose first.
Why isn’t any one on our side making the case that these invaders from Syria are NOT refugees??? Where are our conservative Reps screaming, 24/7, at press conferences, about this?
The Christian Syrians are not being allowed in. The moslem Syrians are NOT facing religious persecution.
What’s to keep them from hopping on a Greyhound bus and entering Texas?
Meaningless unless every state does it. Once they are settled, they can move wherever they please. There’s no way to stop that.
Its been quite awhile since anyone in Washington paid any attention to what the American Constitution says.
Exactly right. That has been the basis for my argument that the UN ought to be employed in that area to resolve the strife rather than allowing its spread.
And your point should have been recognized by our R's from the beginning.
What is happening is about as silly as imagining during WWII the US welcoming large numbers of civilian members of Germany's NAZI party and allowed them to spread at will throughout our country. Absolutely no politician would have turned a blind eye to the level of threat to our war production capabilities.
In current terms, they bring the real threat of civil discord such as we saw following 9/11.
I nominate Abbott for Gov. of 2015. He has led against all Obama’s illegal unilateral executive actions that try to shove his crap sandwiches down our throats.
Abbott is a great lawyer, and a natural leader.
Don’t Mess With Texas
PREEXISTING BASIS OF STATES` RIGHTS TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION
...”power to regulate immigration is a power exercised by the original 13 States and preexisted our existing Constitution”
GOVERNOR OF THE COLONY OF NEW YORK REGULATES ITS BORDERS AND IMMIGRATION FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
VIZ.
1678-1682 “French intrigues among New York Indians finally led [Gov.] Andros to issue an order that Frenchmen coming from Canada without passes would be sent to the West Indies
...This situation continued until 1682, when Frontenac was recalled by King Louis. His successor governed so harshly that more than sixty [French] colonists moved into New York [colony, not NY City], and were permitted to settle, a large number of them at Saratoga [Schuylerville] where they had good access to both the Albany and Montreal fur markets. The trade [fur] thereafter was sharply distracted from Montreal to Albany. The Sieur de Salvaye asked Anthony Brockholes, acting governor in Andros’ absence, to help stop the flight of [French] settlers. Brockholes replied that Andros had done all he could to [stop] French runaways and recommended to Salvaye that he contact Andros’ successor when one arrived.”
Rogers, Robert J., “Rising Above Circumstances”, Sheltus & Picard, 1998, p.123
A time always comes when reality overcomes optimism sad as that is. Like the poor farmer that bet the farm in the old B grade Saturday matinee only to find he had been had, who waits for the reformed gunfighter to arrive and right the wrong, we wait for the politician who will relieve our pain, but he isn't coming.
Excellent post, John. Thank you very much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.